K. Phillips

The applicant father sought an order prohibiting the respondent mother from relocating with their two children from Ottawa to Cobourg, Ontario.

The mother proposed the move to live with her new partner, who resided in Stoney Creek, choosing Cobourg as a halfway point.

The court applied the Gordon v. Goertz framework and considered the Moving Ontario Family Law Forward Act, 2020.

Finding that the move would significantly disrupt the children's lives, impair their relationship with their father, and remove them from their established support systems, the court concluded the relocation was not in the children's best interests.

The application was granted, and the children were ordered to remain ordinarily resident in Ottawa.

The self-represented plaintiff brought an action regarding an oral agreement for the transfer of land, which had previously been dismissed in Small Claims Court.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action.

The court granted the motion, finding the action was res judicata, an abuse of process, and outside the applicable limitation period.

The court also issued a vesting order on consent to restore the status quo regarding the property.

The applicants, charged with driving offences following a dirt bike collision, brought a Charter motion to exclude blood samples and medical records seized by police.

They argued the Information to Obtain (ITO) failed to establish the affiant's subjective belief in reasonable and probable grounds.

The court found the affiant only possessed a reasonable suspicion, rendering the search warrant and production order invalid and in breach of s. 8 of the Charter.

Applying the Grant framework, the court excluded the evidence under s. 24(2), citing the overbroad production order, careless drafting, and the issuing justice's apparent failure to properly review the materials.

The applicant father brought an ex-parte motion for an order directing police to apprehend the parties' four children and return them to him, alleging the respondent mother had abducted them.

The mother had fled to a women's shelter, alleging domestic abuse, and her location was known only to the Children's Aid Society.

The court dismissed the ex-parte apprehension request, finding that abruptly removing the children from their primary caregiver to change their schooling and healthcare would be contrary to their best interests.

However, the court ordered the matter to proceed as an urgent motion on notice and permitted substituted service on the mother via the Children's Aid Society.

The plaintiff, a 62-year-old store manager with 20 years of service, was placed on a performance improvement plan with arbitrary and unfair goals.

After meeting the goals, she was offered a demotion, which she refused, claiming constructive dismissal.

The court found the employer did not have just cause for dismissal, as the plaintiff was not incompetent and the performance goals were impossible to meet.

The court held the plaintiff was constructively dismissed and awarded 20 months' pay in lieu of notice, totaling $104,499.33, finding her refusal to accept the demotion and her subsequent mitigation efforts were reasonable.

The parties separated after a 20-year relationship.

The court determined the equalization of net family property, including the treatment of the respondent's interest in a family trust created during an estate freeze.

The court found the respondent had sufficient control over the trust to include its value in his net family property, and declined to exclude it as a gift because the applicant was a co-beneficiary.

The court imputed corporate pre-tax income to the respondent, fixing his income at $242,148, and ordered retroactive child and spousal support.

The matrimonial home was valued at $1,000,000.